<<< Public Gives Trump Low Marks for First 100 Days: NBC News/WSJ Poll >>>

[George Core]

(Why aren't Trump's radical rightwing fabrication factory fever
swamps reporting this?)


Public Gives Trump Low Marks for First 100 Days: NBC News/WSJ
Poll

by Mark Murray


Nearly two-thirds of Americans give President Donald Trump poor
or middling marks for his first 100 days in office, including a
plurality who say he's off to a "poor start," according to
results from a brand-new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Forty-five percent of respondents in the survey believe Trump
is off to a poor start, with an additional 19 percent who say
it's been "only a fair start." That's compared with a combined
35 percent who think the president's first three months in
office have been either "good" or "great."

Trump's 100th day in office takes place on April 29.

By contrast, in the exact same question from April 2009 NBC/WSJ
poll, 54 percent of Americans said that Barack Obama's first
100 days had gotten off to either a good or great start, while
25 percent said they were fair, and 21 percent called them
poor.

Trump's overall job-approval rating stands at 40 percent — down
four points from February. It's the lowest job-approval rating
for a new president at this 100-day stage in the history of the
NBC/WSJ poll.


NBC News
At this same point in time of their presidencies, Obama's
overall rating stood at 61 percent in the poll, George W.
Bush's was at 56 percent and Bill Clinton's was at 52 percent.

By party, 82 percent of Republicans approve of Trump's job,
versus just 7 percent of Democrats and 30 percent of
independents who give the president a thumbs-up.


NBC News
Forty percent of Americans approve of Trump's handling of
foreign policy, while 44 percent approve of his economic
handling.

Asked if Trump's first 100 days have been more effective or
less effective than his predecessors' starts, 44 percent said
Trump's beginning has been less effective, and 32 percent said
it had been more effective; 22 percent said it's been about as
effective.

And 46 percent say that Trump's leadership and plans for the
country make them feel more hopeful, versus 52 percent who say
they make them feel more doubtful.

That's a significant departure from April 2009, when 64 percent
of Americans said that Obama's leadership and plans had made
them feel more hopeful, while 30 percent were more doubtful.

Erosion in Trump's numbers

The new NBC/WSJ poll also shows an erosion in some of Trump's
top perceived qualities, with 50 percent of respondents giving
Trump high marks for being firm and decisive in his decision-
making - down from the 57 percent who gave him high marks here
in February.

Another 39 percent of Americans give him high marks for
changing business as usual in Washington - down from 45 percent
two months ago.

Thirty-nine percent give him high marks for being effective and
getting things done - down from 46 percent who said this back
in February.

And only 25 percent give him high marks for being honest and
trustworthy - down from 34 percent.

Meanwhile, his standing is mostly unchanged when it comes to
his perceived weaknesses: Just 27 percent give him high marks
for being knowledgeable and experienced enough to handle the
presidency, and only 21 percent give him high marks for having
the right temperament.

Play Data Download: Partisan Divide True For Sports Fans, Too
Facebook Twitter Embed
Data Download: Partisan Divide True For Sports Fans, Too 1:41
Sixty-Two percent support Trump's military action in Syria

The best news for President Trump in the poll is on the issue
of Syria.

Sixty-two percent of Americans say they support the Trump
administration's recent military action in response to the
Syrian government's chemical-weapon attack against its own
people.

By party, 88 percent of Republicans, 43 percent of Democrats
and 58 percent of independents back that recent military
action.

And 50 percent of all Americans say they approve of Trump's
handling of Syria - 10 points higher than his overall approval
rating.

The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted April 17-20 of 900 adults,
including more than 400 who were interviewed by cell phone. The
poll's overall margin of error is plus-minus 3.3 percentage
points.


http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/public-gives-
trump-low-marks-first-100-days-nbc-news-n749756?
google_editors_picks=true

[Scout]

"George Core" <georg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:XnsA760A944F7...@213.239.209.88...

> (Why aren't Trump's radical rightwing fabrication factory fever
> swamps reporting this?)
>
>
> Public Gives Trump Low Marks for First 100 Days: NBC News/WSJ
> Poll
>
> by Mark Murray
>
>
> Nearly two-thirds of Americans give President Donald Trump poor
> or middling marks for his first 100 days in office, including a
> plurality who say he's off to a "poor start," according to
> results from a brand-new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Big surprise since it wouldn't matter how great Trump is doing, at least 40%
would mark him down anyway.....or shall we forget the anti-Trump protests
STILL taking place?

Sorry, but I remember when NBC News/Wall Street Journal were telling us how
the polls shows that Hillary was a shoe in and the election merely a
formality.

Sorry, just because they claim to have a poll, does NOT automatically mean
the results reflect the feelings of America as a whole.

Heck, I bet the overwhelming majority of people asked to respond to this
poll were Hillary supporters in highly democratic urban areas.....

[FPP]

... and you'd lose that bet.

--
"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the
Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps
themselves up in the flag." -Molly Ivins

[max headroom]

In news:odlmva$upm$1...@dont-email.me, Scout <me4...@centurylink.removeme.this2.net> typed:

> "George Core" <georg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:XnsA760A944F7...@213.239.209.88...

>> (Why aren't Trump's radical rightwing fabrication factory fever
>> swamps reporting this?)

>> Public Gives Trump Low Marks for First 100 Days: NBC News/WSJ
>> Poll

>> by Mark Murray


>> Nearly two-thirds of Americans give President Donald Trump poor
>> or middling marks for his first 100 days in office, including a
>> plurality who say he's off to a "poor start," according to
>> results from a brand-new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

> Big surprise since it wouldn't matter how great Trump is doing, at least 40%
> would mark him down anyway.....or shall we forget the anti-Trump protests
> STILL taking place?

> Sorry, but I remember when NBC News/Wall Street Journal were telling us how
> the polls shows that Hillary was a shoe in and the election merely a
> formality.

> Sorry, just because they claim to have a poll, does NOT automatically mean
> the results reflect the feelings of America as a whole.

According to an ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted last week, "Asked how they would vote if the
election were held today, 43 say they would support Trump and 40 percent say Clinton."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/nearing-100-days-trumps-approval-at-record-lows-but-his-base-is-holding/2017/04/22/a513a466-26b4-11e7-b503-9d616bd5a305_story.html

(Why aren't Trump's radical leftwing fabrication factory fever swamps reporting this?)

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:odluf7$pbe$2...@dont-email.me...

> On 4/24/17 4:28 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "George Core" <georg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:XnsA760A944F7...@213.239.209.88...
>>> (Why aren't Trump's radical rightwing fabrication factory fever
>>> swamps reporting this?)
>>>
>>>
>>> Public Gives Trump Low Marks for First 100 Days: NBC News/WSJ
>>> Poll
>>>
>>> by Mark Murray
>>>
>>>
>>> Nearly two-thirds of Americans give President Donald Trump poor
>>> or middling marks for his first 100 days in office, including a
>>> plurality who say he's off to a "poor start," according to
>>> results from a brand-new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
>>
>> Big surprise since it wouldn't matter how great Trump is doing, at least
>> 40% would mark him down anyway.....or shall we forget the anti-Trump
>> protests STILL taking place?
>>
>> Sorry, but I remember when NBC News/Wall Street Journal were telling us
>> how the polls shows that Hillary was a shoe in and the election merely a
>> formality.
>>
>> Sorry, just because they claim to have a poll, does NOT automatically
>> mean the results reflect the feelings of America as a whole.
>>
>> Heck, I bet the overwhelming majority of people asked to respond to this
>> poll were Hillary supporters in highly democratic urban areas.....
>
> ... and you'd lose that bet.

Fine...now let's see your evidence.

[Scout]

"max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:odmfos$tnf$2...@dont-email.me...

Heck, why didn't they jump all over the MSN poll that was briefly up in
which with about 190k responses, showed that if the 2016 election were held
that day, Trump would have gotten about 43% of the vote, Hillary only about
35% and about 3% of another candidate.

That was only about a month ago. Apparently they take down, and ignore polls
that don't produce the results they want to see.

So again, the evidence is that such polls mean nothing but rather only
reflect what those who took/promote them want to see.

[Loon Smasher]

from the Same Pollsters that Duped so many Loons ... into "Thinking" ... "There is No Path to 270 for Trump" ... "Hillary Up by 11 points in PA ... 9 in WI ..." ... Dumb Ass!

[FPP]

Fine, here it is:

You made an offhand supposition that's not based on any objective facts
- just an opinion.
You bet on something you can't justify. You lose.

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:odoik2$l9d$1...@dont-email.me...

True, but that doesn't make your claim or opinion any more valid.

> You bet on something you can't justify. You lose.

And yet, based on poll results vs real world results, polls seem wildly
inaccurate.

Otherwise it would be President Clinton.

Oh, but despite the polls she lost...big time.

My point is still valid, the accuracy of such polls is seriously in
question.

Indeed if we are to go with polls do you realize that Trump would still get
42% of the vote, while Hillary could only manage 35%?

That's polling nearly 900K people.

[Buzz Forward]

Nope. She won in the popular vote, and hardly suffered a "landslide"
loss in the electoral college. Trump's electoral college victory margin
wasn't the smallest ever, but it was pretty small.

[FPP]

I'm not claiming anything. I'm stating you'd lose your bet because you
have zero evidence to prove it.

As far as the rest goes, that's pretty on the money. Polls are
snapshots that take into account what people tell them.

That's never a good bet.

[Scout]

"Buzz Forward"
<kick.jerry.sauks.fat.p...@everywhere.now> wrote in
message news:S0RLA.4$Qa...@fx10.iad...

Which means, exactly nothing. It would be like claiming a football team won
the game despite having scored fewer points because they gained more yardage
on the plays.

>and hardly suffered a "landslide" loss in the electoral college.

Whatever, he won by a clear and solid majority. May not have been a
landslide, but on the other hand I didn't say it was.

> Trump's electoral college victory margin wasn't the smallest ever, but it
> was pretty small.

He beat her by over 7% in the electoral college which is a big loss.



But hey, if it makes you feel better to claim that Hillary ran for more
yards, or that she was 'barely' defeated, feel free. In the end he point a
lot more points on the board than she did, and had a clear and decisive
victory. Basically the exact OPPOSITE of what the 'polls' indicated.

So again...the question of the validity of such polls is very much in
question.

On March 31st MSN ran the following poll:

"If the presidential election were held again today, who would get your
vote?"

With nearly 900K responses the results were:

"Hillary Clinton - 35%"
"Donald Trump - 42%"
"Another candidate - 19%"
"I wouldn't vote - 4%"

If we are to believe the polls, then in about 3 months Hillary went from
massively popular to a person of only moderate interest to people.

Which polls do we believe?

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:odopfc$6mk$2...@dont-email.me...

Sorry, but I don't need to know the outcome to place a bet.

I place it because I believe the odds are in my favor.

Now you can try to show me that I'm wrong, but simply saying I don't know
the answer doesn't automatically mean my bet won't and can't win.

> As far as the rest goes, that's pretty on the money. Polls are snapshots
> that take into account what people tell them.
>
> That's never a good bet.

Yep, now given the real world results just a couple of months ago....

Then add that to the fact the liberals are still protesting the man's
election and would refuse to admit he's done anything positive towards his
goals.

And finally that the polls declaring Hillary's sweeping victory and this
poll were almost certainly done in exactly the same manner....

Nope, I think it's a pretty reasonable bit with a better than average chance
of being on the right side of of the odds....

You seem to opposite it, well, because you don't like Trump, and can't
believe that people would continue to support him, despite the progress he's
made in the first few months in carrying out his campaign promises.

Feel free to prove me wrong, but I suspect very few liberals would agree
Trump is doing good no matter how well he was doing so.

[trotsky]

No, Trump did. So you're agreeing he's a liar?

[Scout]

"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
news:J0pMA.115227$KE1.1...@fx42.iad...

Nope, it's a POV and an opinion.

Meanwhile you have confirmed that what I said was right.

[Shadow]

On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 19:09:04 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@centurylink.removeme.this2.net> wrote:

>Indeed if we are to go with polls do you realize that Trump would still get
>42% of the vote, while Hillary could only manage 35%?

Probably not. A lot of people backed Trump based on promises
he's since made quite clear were lies.
Anyway, even if it was true it proves absolutely nothing.
Would you rather eat dog-shit or horse-shit ?
It's still shit.
Hillary was obviously a bad choice. But that does not make
Trump a good one.
Proof ?

<http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/public-gives-trump-low-marks-first-100-days-nbc-news-n749756>
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

[Scout]

"Shadow" <S...@dow.br> wrote in message
news:9ib4gc972tb3fkjec...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 19:09:04 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@centurylink.removeme.this2.net> wrote:
>
>>Indeed if we are to go with polls do you realize that Trump would still
>>get
>>42% of the vote, while Hillary could only manage 35%?
>
> Probably not.

Maybe, maybe not. Just reporting the results of the poll.

>A lot of people backed Trump based on promises
> he's since made quite clear were lies.

Which ones?

And I think every person elected has backed out of some promises almost
immediately upon being elected.

> Anyway, even if it was true it proves absolutely nothing.

Shows Hillary's support is evaporating far faster than Trump's is.

> Would you rather eat dog-shit or horse-shit ?
> It's still shit.
> Hillary was obviously a bad choice. But that does not make
> Trump a good one.
> Proof ?

You assume good was a choice. You had bad and worse. We knew Hillary as a
lying, cheating, self centered politician interested only in her own
advancement and that which ended up lining her pockets. Trump at least had
the advantage of not being a politician, which a proven track record of
ignoring his elected duties to the public. Further he's still pushing
forward on a lot of the things that got him elected. Better than Obama 3.

[FPP]

Yup... he's a liar, and only a moron supports someone they know is a liar.

--
"Take a Tic-Tac and grab 'em by the pussy is the closest thing to a plan
Donald Trump has described this entire election." -Samantha Bee

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:odtrkb$omq$4...@dont-email.me...

So according to you he's a liar because he has a different opinion than you
do?

So much for your ability to judge dishonesty.

[FPP]

If you're smart, only the one on election day.

[FPP]

Too bad the polls didn't take into account the dishonesty of the
Republican candidate, the dishonesty of the media in chasing irrelevant
emails, the dishonesty of the FBI by violating their own guidelines and
the dishonesty of the Russians tampering in our election process.

But sure... continue to blame the polls. That's the easiest story to
understand.

[FPP]

Whatever you agree with Trump on today, he'll disagree with you on it
tomorrow.

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:odtrf7$omq$2...@dont-email.me...

You mean the one that Hillary LOST?

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:odtrqt$qi7$1...@dont-email.me...

As opposed to the dishonesty of the Democrat candidate?

Yea, the polls certainly didn't account for that....or they might have been
more accurate.

> the dishonesty of the media

Yea, but they were doing all they can to collude with Clinton to get her
elected. They still failed.

> in chasing irrelevant emails,

Not according to the FBI.

By their own report she violated all sorts of laws on the sending,
receiving, storage, sharing, and disposition of classified material.

But hey, as a liberal I'm sure you agree with her that National Security is
irrelevant.

> the dishonesty of the FBI by violating their own guidelines

Ah, but she told the FBI to disclose everything to the public. What's the
matter, upset with transparency in government?

> and the dishonesty of the Russians tampering in our election process.

Yea, it's SO dishonest to reveal the truth.

> But sure... continue to blame the polls. That's the easiest story to
> understand.

Hey, I didn't say the polls were the only reason she lost, or even a reason
she lost. I simply stated that polls were massively inaccurate. Which they
clearly were. Even with all of what you talk about going on, the polls STILL
showed Hillary as a shoe in...but then you did mention something about a
dishonest media....

[FPP]

All bullshit that didn't address a single point.

Congrats.

[FPP]

On 4/27/17 8:23 PM, Scout wrote:

>> the dishonesty of the FBI by violating their own guidelines
>
> Ah, but she told the FBI to disclose everything to the public. What's
> the matter, upset with transparency in government?

Your response is full of shit.

Comey was already investigating Trump for the Russia connection we all
KNOW is there, but wouldn't say anything so he didn't tip the election
one way or the other.

Then he came out months later and did exactly that, when it hurt Hillary.

[FPP]

On 4/27/17 8:23 PM, Scout wrote:

>> the dishonesty of the media
>
> Yea, but they were doing all they can to collude with Clinton to get her
> elected. They still failed.

Emails, emails emails... with nothing there.

Trump defrauded his students and contractors, paid bribes to 2 AG's and
admitted one was paid illegally.

He used Foundation money to pay his debts and buy portraits of himself.

Yeah, tell me which one the media pounced on every month.

[FPP]

On 4/27/17 8:23 PM, Scout wrote:
>

>> in chasing irrelevant emails,
>
> Not according to the FBI.
>
> By their own report she violated all sorts of laws on the sending,
> receiving, storage, sharing, and disposition of classified material.

So what were those "laws" you're imagining?

Because all I heard Comey say is that no prosecutor would have brought a
case - and he recommended the same.

Liar.

[FPP]

On 4/27/17 8:23 PM, Scout wrote:

>> and the dishonesty of the Russians tampering in our election process.
>
> Yea, it's SO dishonest to reveal the truth.

You don't admit they tampered to get one of the candidates elected?

17 US Intel agencies and a few foreign ones have stated it as fact.

But you know better, don't you?

You're nothing more than a lying moron. And a bad liar at that.

[FPP]

Figured out all by yourself, did you? Well, it's a start... baby steps,
baby steps...

[FPP]

On 4/27/17 8:29 PM, Scout wrote:

> You assume good was a choice. You had bad and worse. We knew Hillary as
> a lying, cheating, self centered politician interested only in her own
> advancement and that which ended up lining her pockets. Trump at least
> had the advantage of not being a politician, which a proven track record
> of ignoring his elected duties to the public. Further he's still pushing
> forward on a lot of the things that got him elected. Better than Obama 3.

Tired of winning yet, then?

What happened to all those positions candidate Trump took before the
election?

How many of them are still left? Any?

[max headroom]

In news:oduddj$smn$7...@dont-email.me, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> typed:

> On 4/27/17 8:23 PM, Scout wrote:

>>> and the dishonesty of the Russians tampering in our election process.

>> Yea, it's SO dishonest to reveal the truth.

> You don't admit they tampered to get one of the candidates elected?

> 17 US Intel agencies and a few foreign ones have stated it as fact.

As fact, or probability?

> But you know better, don't you?

Obviously you think you do.

> You're nothing more than a lying moron. And a bad liar at that.

And you're a partisan shill.

The era of the pajama boy is over; the alpha males are back. Deal with it.

[FPP]

And you're a fucking dimwit.
Facts are facts. Try learning a few.

> • In unequivocal language, the report pins responsibility for the election attack directly on President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, ruling out the possibility that it was ordered by intelligence officials or simply carried out by Kremlin supporters.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/russian-hack-report.html?_r=0

Now look up what "unequivocal" means.
I'm not being paid to tutor halfwits...

--
Trump at his press conference: “To be honest, I inherited a mess.
Stephen Colbert: “No. You inherited a fortune. We elected a mess.”

[FPP]

On 4/27/17 8:29 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>

> "Shadow" <S...@dow.br> wrote in message
> news:9ib4gc972tb3fkjec...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 19:09:04 -0400, "Scout"
>> <me4...@centurylink.removeme.this2.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Indeed if we are to go with polls do you realize that Trump would
>>> still get
>>> 42% of the vote, while Hillary could only manage 35%?
>>
>> Probably not.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. Just reporting the results of the poll.
>
>> A lot of people backed Trump based on promises
>> he's since made quite clear were lies.
>
> Which ones?
>
> And I think every person elected has backed out of some promises almost
> immediately upon being elected.

Not even remotely like trump has. NOT. EVEN. CLOSE.
Just off the top of my head:

Terminate NAFTA
Repeal and Replace Obamacare
Declare China a Currency Manipulator
Mexico paying for a Wall
Special Prosecutor for Hillary
Draining the Swamp
Releasing his Tax Returns
Throw China out of WTO
The Muslim Travel Ban
End Birthright Citizenship
Term Limits for Congress
Death Penalty for Cop Killers
Big Infrastructure Bill
No cuts to Social Security or Medicare
Better and cheaper healthcare for everybody
Defeat ISIS quickly and easily
Reverse Obama Cuba policy
NATO is obsolete
Mandate US Steel for pipelines
Grow the economy by 4% annually
Hire American Workers First
Eliminate Federal Debt in 8 years
TAKE NO VACATIONS
Eliminate Carried Interest Loophole
Put coal miners back to work
Bring back lost manufacturing jobs

I'm sure there are more... so you be sure to get back to me when he's
made good on the first installment of his lies.

[max headroom]

In news:odukkd$ern$1...@dont-email.me, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> typed:

> On 4/28/17 12:04 AM, max headroom wrote:
>> In news:oduddj$smn$7...@dont-email.me, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> typed:

>>> On 4/27/17 8:23 PM, Scout wrote:

>>>>> and the dishonesty of the Russians tampering in our election process.

>>>> Yea, it's SO dishonest to reveal the truth.

>>> You don't admit they tampered to get one of the candidates elected?

>>> 17 US Intel agencies and a few foreign ones have stated it as fact.

>> As fact, or probability?

>>> But you know better, don't you?

>> Obviously you think you do.

>>> You're nothing more than a lying moron. And a bad liar at that.

>> And you're a partisan shill.

>> The era of the pajama boy is over; the alpha males are back. Deal with it.

> And you're a fucking dimwit.
> Facts are facts. Try learning a few.

>> • In unequivocal language, the report pins responsibility for the election
>> attack directly on President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, ruling out the
>> possibility that it was ordered by intelligence officials or simply carried
>> out by Kremlin supporters.

> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/russian-hack-report.html?_r=0

> Now look up what "unequivocal" means.
> I'm not being paid to tutor halfwits...

Nor am I paid for my efforts-- I do it for pleasure.

"Questioned on Russia’s involvement, Mr Assange insisted Vladimir Putin’s administration was not
involved.

“'We can say, we have said, repeatedly that over the last two months that our source is not the
Russian government and it is not a state party,' he said.

“'If you look at most of his [Obama’s] statements, he doesn’t say that.

“'He doesn’t say that Wikileaks obtained its information from Russia, worked with Russia.'

"Asked if the Podesta files changed the course of the election, Mr Assange replied: 'Who knows, it’s
impossible to tell. But if it did, the accusation is that the true statements of Hillary Clinton and
her campaign manager, John Podesta, and the DNC [Democratic National Committee] head Debbie
Wasserman Schultz, their true statements is what changed the election.'”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/julian-assange-barack-obama-donald-trump-russia-hacking-claims-us-election-delegitimise-claims-a7507706.html

[FPP]

On 4/28/17 12:04 AM, max headroom wrote:
>

> And you're a partisan shill.
>
> The era of the pajama boy is over; the alpha males are back. Deal with it.

Do you always get your talking points from Nazi sympathizers?
Or just the ones Trump is currently employing?

I'd love to know which it is. Either way, you are known by the company
you keep.
And I'm sure you feel right at home, now.

[FPP]

Quoting a guy who is holed up in a foreign embassy to evade justice
really lends your remarks a certain air.

One that is faintly reminiscent of rat turds.

[Vidcapper]

On 27/04/2017 18:53, Shadow wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 19:09:04 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@centurylink.removeme.this2.net> wrote:
>
>> Indeed if we are to go with polls do you realize that Trump would still get
>> 42% of the vote, while Hillary could only manage 35%?
>
> Probably not. A lot of people backed Trump based on promises
> he's since made quite clear were lies.

Hold the presses - politician lies to get elected... :p



--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

[FPP]

I cite 17 American intelligence agencies.
You cite a rapist in hiding.

Way to go, Sparky!

[FPP]

Sure... because all politicians are like Trump, right? Or how about
even *some* politicians who compare to this one?

Good luck naming one who comes even *close* to him. Cause I've been
watching politicians for 45 years and studied them throughout college.

I've never seen one that even inhabits the same reality as President 180.

[trotsky]

Yes, I predict he'll reverse his stance on N. Korea next.

[max headroom]

In news:oduoto$olm$4...@dont-email.me, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> typed:

Yes, the poor persecuted social justice warrior has made many enemies... many who were former
supporters.

> One that is faintly reminiscent of rat turds.

I'll have to defer to your intimate knowledge on that scent.

[max headroom]

In news:odup1h$olm$5...@dont-email.me, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> typed:

> I cite 17 American intelligence agencies....

Name them.

> You cite a rapist in hiding.

"Alleged" rapist. Ya know, like the Duke lacrosse team.

> Way to go, Sparky!

[max headroom]

In news:oduonf$olm$2...@dont-email.me, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> typed:

> On 4/28/17 12:04 AM, max headroom wrote:

>> And you're a partisan shill.

>> The era of the pajama boy is over; the alpha males are back. Deal with it.

> Do you always get your talking points from Nazi sympathizers?

Actually, I got that one from NPR. When I stopped laughing, I had to look up the source.

Accusing your detractors of Nazi sympathies is so, so... Democratic!

Why am I not surprised?

> Or just the ones Trump is currently employing?

> I'd love to know which it is. Either way, you are known by the company
> you keep.
> And I'm sure you feel right at home, now.

So where do you get your talking points? TalkingPointsMemo.com? Dailykos? MoveOn?

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

Accusing someone of sexual crimes is as generic as taxing CO2....
everyone is susceptible.

--
That's Karma

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

On 04/28/2017 01:43 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 4/28/17 12:04 AM, max headroom wrote:
>> In news:oduddj$smn$7...@dont-email.me, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> typed:
>>
>>> On 4/27/17 8:23 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>>>> and the dishonesty of the Russians tampering in our election process.
>>
>>>> Yea, it's SO dishonest to reveal the truth.
>>
>>> You don't admit they tampered to get one of the candidates elected?
>>
>>> 17 US Intel agencies and a few foreign ones have stated it as fact.
>>
>> As fact, or probability?
>>
>>> But you know better, don't you?
>>
>> Obviously you think you do.
>>
>>> You're nothing more than a lying moron. And a bad liar at that.
>>
>> And you're a partisan shill.
>>
>> The era of the pajama boy is over; the alpha males are back. Deal with
>> it.
>
>
> And you're a fucking dimwit.
> Facts are facts. Try learning a few.
>
>> • In unequivocal language, the report pins responsibility for the
>> election attack directly on President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia,
>> ruling out the possibility that it was ordered by intelligence
>> officials or simply carried out by Kremlin supporters.
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/russian-hack-report.html?_r=0
>
>
> Now look up what "unequivocal" means.
> I'm not being paid to tutor halfwits...
>

Too bad, the market to tutor halfwits is huge, it's equal to the number
of college graduates every year, and then some.


--
That's Karma

[Wiley E. Coyote]

George Core <georg...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:XnsA760A944F7729bifferfitz@
213.239.209.88:

> (Why aren't Trump's radical rightwing fabrication factory fever
> swamps reporting this?)

Whay aren't you dead?

--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017

[FPP]

Why? Are your fingers broken?

[FPP]

What Embassy did the Duke lacrosse team hide out in?

Go ahead... name it.

[FPP]

Yes, you keep sucking around "Mr. Assahat's" butt... that's what the
little nuggets of info you cite cling to.

[FPP]

Guess *you* just get used to it, after awhile, huh?

[FPP]

Oh, I forgot... somebody said "turd", and up pops Scotty...

[FPP]

On 4/28/17 10:28 AM, max headroom wrote:
> In news:oduonf$olm$2...@dont-email.me, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> typed:
>
>> On 4/28/17 12:04 AM, max headroom wrote:
>
>>> And you're a partisan shill.
>
>>> The era of the pajama boy is over; the alpha males are back. Deal with it.
>
>> Do you always get your talking points from Nazi sympathizers?
>
> Actually, I got that one from NPR. When I stopped laughing, I had to look up the source.

Really... well, that's some real bullshit there, maxie!
It's a DIRECT quote from President von Munchausen's personal Nazi
sympathizer, Sebastian v. Gorka.

> “The message I have, it’s a very simple one. It’s a bumper sticker, Sean: The era of the Pajama Boy is over January 20th, and the alpha males are back.” -S v. Gorka

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/12/18/gorka-era-pajama-boy-january-20th-alpha-males-back/

Know what the lowercase "v" represents? Of course you DO! He's a
member of a Nazi sympathizer organization back in Hungary.

Lack of NPR citation noted. But that was a real nice attempt!
Stick to lying to girls, you'll get farther.

Too easy!

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:odudh0$smn$9...@dont-email.me...

> On 4/27/17 8:29 PM, Scout wrote:
>> You assume good was a choice. You had bad and worse. We knew Hillary as
>> a lying, cheating, self centered politician interested only in her own
>> advancement and that which ended up lining her pockets. Trump at least
>> had the advantage of not being a politician, which a proven track record
>> of ignoring his elected duties to the public. Further he's still pushing
>> forward on a lot of the things that got him elected. Better than Obama 3.
>
> Tired of winning yet, then?
>
> What happened to all those positions candidate Trump took before the
> election?

So you don't like Trump....but have NO idea of what he's doing.

Therefore, your dislike for Trump is based on your ignorance and bigotry
rather than on performance.

[FPP]

No, I don't like Trump. I don't like many people with malignant
personalities.
As far as what he's doing, I can measure that. Nothing. What major
legislation has he passed?

What about those promises he pledged to fulfill in his first 100 days?
How many of them has he delivered on?

Obamacare?
NAFTA?
NATO?
China?
ISIS?

What do you base your like of Trump on? Because it sure as shit isn't
for what he's accomplished, so far.

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:oduocb$olm$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 4/27/17 8:29 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Shadow" <S...@dow.br> wrote in message
>> news:9ib4gc972tb3fkjec...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 19:09:04 -0400, "Scout"
>>> <me4...@centurylink.removeme.this2.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Indeed if we are to go with polls do you realize that Trump would still
>>>> get
>>>> 42% of the vote, while Hillary could only manage 35%?
>>>
>>> Probably not.
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not. Just reporting the results of the poll.
>>
>>> A lot of people backed Trump based on promises
>>> he's since made quite clear were lies.
>>
>> Which ones?
>>
>> And I think every person elected has backed out of some promises almost
>> immediately upon being elected.
>
> Not even remotely like trump has. NOT. EVEN. CLOSE.
> Just off the top of my head:
>
> Terminate NAFTA

In Process

> Repeal and Replace Obamacare

In Process

> Declare China a Currency Manipulator

Flipped

> Mexico paying for a Wall

Still on the table

> Special Prosecutor for Hillary

Flipped

> Draining the Swamp

In process

> Releasing his Tax Returns

Not a promise

> Throw China out of WTO

Flip

> The Muslim Travel Ban

In process

> End Birthright Citizenship

In holding, since would require Congressional action

> Term Limits for Congress

Ditto

> Death Penalty for Cop Killers

Not a Presidental power, up to Congress and the states to set the penalities

> Big Infrastructure Bill

In process

> No cuts to Social Security or Medicare

Never said he wouldn't cut them.

> Better and cheaper healthcare for everybody

In process

> Defeat ISIS quickly and easily

Who said quickly and easily?

> Reverse Obama Cuba policy

Never a promise

> NATO is obsolete

Not a promise

> Mandate US Steel for pipelines

In process

> Grow the economy by 4% annually

In process

> Hire American Workers First

In process

> Eliminate Federal Debt in 8 years

Not a promise.

> TAKE NO VACATIONS

None taken

> Eliminate Carried Interest Loophole

In process

> Put coal miners back to work

In process

> Bring back lost manufacturing jobs

In process

> I'm sure there are more... so you be sure to get back to me when he's made
> good on the first installment of his lies.

Wow, you expect a lot in 100 days.

Hmmm.. Obama didn't do nearly this good in 4 years.

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:odud7r$smn$5...@dont-email.me...

> On 4/27/17 8:23 PM, Scout wrote:

>>> the dishonesty of the media
>>
>> Yea, but they were doing all they can to collude with Clinton to get her
>> elected. They still failed.
>
> Emails, emails emails... with nothing there.

Not according to the FBI...but hey, what do they know?

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:odudap$smn$6...@dont-email.me...

> On 4/27/17 8:23 PM, Scout wrote:
>>

>>> in chasing irrelevant emails,
>>
>> Not according to the FBI.
>>
>> By their own report she violated all sorts of laws on the sending,
>> receiving, storage, sharing, and disposition of classified material.
>
> So what were those "laws" you're imagining?
>
> Because all I heard Comey say is that no prosecutor would have brought a
> case - and he recommended the same.

No, he recommended that it not be prosecuted, not that no prosecutor would,
or that a prosecution wouldn't result in a conviction. Per the FBI's OWN
release, Hillary's violation of the laws concerning classified information
is without question.

Now, it does make me wonder why Hillary wasn't prosecuted even though we
have people in jail for having done far less than Hillary has already been
shown to have done.

But hey, just because they didn't prosecute her doesn't make her innocent,
and the FBI's own report clearly states her guilt beyond question.

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:oduddj$smn$7...@dont-email.me...

> On 4/27/17 8:23 PM, Scout wrote:

>>> and the dishonesty of the Russians tampering in our election process.
>>
>> Yea, it's SO dishonest to reveal the truth.
>
> You don't admit they tampered to get one of the candidates elected?

If transparency is tampering, maybe, but it's never been proven they were
responsible.

> 17 US Intel agencies and a few foreign ones have stated it as fact.

They can state what they like, but no proof has been forthcoming.

But let's see it is true. So what?

How many times has the US interfered in Russian elections over the years?

Are we going to complain simply because they showed Americans what Hillary
and the DNC had been doing behind the scenes?

I will just note that if Clinton and the DNC weren't involved in dishonest,
unethical, and frankly trying to steal the election then the Russians would
have had nothing to find.

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:odukkd$ern$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 4/28/17 12:04 AM, max headroom wrote:

>> In news:oduddj$smn$7...@dont-email.me, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> typed:
>>

>>> On 4/27/17 8:23 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>>>> and the dishonesty of the Russians tampering in our election process.
>>
>>>> Yea, it's SO dishonest to reveal the truth.
>>
>>> You don't admit they tampered to get one of the candidates elected?
>>

>>> 17 US Intel agencies and a few foreign ones have stated it as fact.
>>

>> As fact, or probability?
>>
>>> But you know better, don't you?
>>
>> Obviously you think you do.
>>
>>> You're nothing more than a lying moron. And a bad liar at that.
>>

>> And you're a partisan shill.
>>
>> The era of the pajama boy is over; the alpha males are back. Deal with
>> it.
>
>

> And you're a fucking dimwit.
> Facts are facts. Try learning a few.
>
>> • In unequivocal language, the report pins responsibility for the
>> election attack directly on President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, ruling
>> out the possibility that it was ordered by intelligence officials or
>> simply carried out by Kremlin supporters.
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/russian-hack-report.html?_r=0
>
> Now look up what "unequivocal" means.

Maybe you should note that the use of "unequivocal" was used by the author
as a matter of his personal option. While the report he cites only claims
"with high confidence" which means they are pretty sure he did so, but it's
not certain and they certainly can't prove it.

So clearly they did NOT state it as fact, you just assumed they did.

> I'm not being paid to tutor halfwits...

Good thing, because you would have to give yourself a refund.

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:oduoto$olm$4...@dont-email.me...

He would only need to evade justice if what he said were true.........

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:odup1h$olm$5...@dont-email.me...

No, you cited ONE reporter, and even then you missed the fact that by his
own source it wasn't unequivocal.

It was indeed within the realm of possibility that Russia wasn't involved,
was never involved, and what they have as 'evidence' was about something
else entirely.

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:oe0k7f$5am$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 4/28/17 7:38 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:odudh0$smn$9...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 4/27/17 8:29 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>> You assume good was a choice. You had bad and worse. We knew Hillary as
>>>> a lying, cheating, self centered politician interested only in her own
>>>> advancement and that which ended up lining her pockets. Trump at least
>>>> had the advantage of not being a politician, which a proven track
>>>> record
>>>> of ignoring his elected duties to the public. Further he's still
>>>> pushing
>>>> forward on a lot of the things that got him elected. Better than
>>>> Obama 3.
>>>
>>> Tired of winning yet, then?
>>>
>>> What happened to all those positions candidate Trump took before the
>>> election?
>>
>> So you don't like Trump....but have NO idea of what he's doing.
>>
>> Therefore, your dislike for Trump is based on your ignorance and bigotry
>> rather than on performance.
>
> No, I don't like Trump. I don't like many people with malignant
> personalities.

But you do like Hillary despite her malignant personality?

> As far as what he's doing, I can measure that. Nothing. What major
> legislation has he passed?

What major legislation has made it through Congress for him to sign?

Have to put the cart BEHIND the horse there.....

[Alex W.]

Problem is, he does not appear to be a good designer of carts.

If you want to have and use a cart and horse, first make sure that you
have a cart that is fit for purpose, and that you have a horse that can
be strapped into harness.

Blitzing the country with a flurry of Executive Orders is one thing, but
he kept signing stuff that was quite simply badly formulated and
designed. His travel ban EO is an excellent demonstration of this.

His healthcare reform bill was equally flawed. He tried to push a bill
where any sane advisor must have told him that it would not get a
majority from his own nominal party.

The proposed tax reform, I fear, is similar: he is floating a plan for
tax reduction that would have to be financed with far higher debt,
blissfully disregarding the existing debt ceiling. Where are his
advisors to tell him that any such move will go down in flames?

And lastly, Trump is discovering a truth known to all national leaders:
that they will not only be blamed for their own shit, but for all the
shit they inherited from their predecessors. There is little use in
blaming others -- the buck stops in the Oval Office.

[max headroom]

In news:oe0huc$tlo$6...@dont-email.me, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> typed:

No, your credibility is.

[max headroom]

In news:oe0i55$tlo$9...@dont-email.me, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> typed:

Again, I'll defer to your intimate knowledge of the subject.

[max headroom]

In news:oe0hvm$tlo$7...@dont-email.me, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> typed:

To the best of my knowledge, they never claimed political persecution.

[max headroom]

In news:oe0i3f$tlo$8...@dont-email.me, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> typed:

Ah, I love a thoughtful, well-reasoned debate.

[max headroom]

In news:oe0igu$tf$1...@dont-email.me, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> typed:

> On 4/28/17 10:28 AM, max headroom wrote:
>> In news:oduonf$olm$2...@dont-email.me, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> typed:

>>> On 4/28/17 12:04 AM, max headroom wrote:

>>>> And you're a partisan shill.

>>>> The era of the pajama boy is over; the alpha males are back. Deal with it.

>>> Do you always get your talking points from Nazi sympathizers?

>> Actually, I got that one from NPR. When I stopped laughing, I had to look up
>> the source.

> Really... well, that's some real bullshit there, maxie!
> It's a DIRECT quote from President von Munchausen's personal Nazi
> sympathizer, Sebastian v. Gorka.

>> “The message I have, it’s a very simple one. It’s a bumper sticker, Sean:
>> The era of the Pajama Boy is over January 20th, and the alpha males are
>> back.” -S v. Gorka

> http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/12/18/gorka-era-pajama-boy-january-20th-alpha-males-back/

> Know what the lowercase "v" represents? Of course you DO! He'st a

> member of a Nazi sympathizer organization back in Hungary.

Oh, like Ludwig v. Beethoven? Richard v. Mises? Otto v. Bismarck?

Hot damn, the gems one learns on Usenet! Almost as good as the covers of NATIONAL ENQUIRER we see in
the checkout lanes of grocery stores.

> Lack of NPR citation noted. But that was a real nice attempt!...

Do you maintain logs when you listen to the radio?

> Stick to lying to girls, you'll get farther.

Many progressives think their opponents tell only lies. Nice to know you're not unique.

> Too easy!

I bet you hear that a lot.

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/24/517086461/trump-adviser-sebastian-gorka-threatens-legal-action-over-tweets

[FPP]

Fucknuts, *I* got exactly what *I* expected in the First 100 Days.
Namely, dick.
Trump listed a shitload of things he promised to get done in his First
100 Days.

Not me. Fake President Trump made those promises.

https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2017/04/27/remember-trumps-100-day-plan-heres-what-he-has-and-hasnt-done

--
Trump at his press conference: “To be honest, I inherited a mess.
Stephen Colbert: “No. You inherited a fortune. We elected a mess.”

[Wiley E. Coyote]

"Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:emicu4F3od7U1
@mid.individual.net:

If Trump is proving anything it is that our government is filled with
malignant lice that should be killed.

[Wiley E. Coyote]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:odup1h$olm$5...@dont-email.me:

> I cite 17 American intelligence agencies.

Name them. Provide thier assessments.

> You cite a rapist in hiding.

Billy isn't hiding from anyone except his wife,

[Wiley E. Coyote]

"max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote in
news:oe14ho$2ud$5...@dont-email.me:

What did you expect? HRC supporters/Democrats fall into 2 broad categories:
severly mentally ill or corrupt to the soul.

Liberalism is a mental illness, after all, that destroys reason or destroys
morality. It must be extinguised.

Those that can be should be saved. As for the rest, they must be terminated
lest they reinfect civilation.

[Wiley E. Coyote]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:oe0igu$tf$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 4/28/17 10:28 AM, max headroom wrote:
>> In news:oduonf$olm$2...@dont-email.me, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> typed:
>>
>>> On 4/28/17 12:04 AM, max headroom wrote:
>>
>>>> And you're a partisan shill.
>>
>>>> The era of the pajama boy is over; the alpha males are back. Deal
>>>> with it.
>>
>>> Do you always get your talking points from Nazi sympathizers?
>>
>> Actually, I got that one from NPR. When I stopped laughing, I had to
>> look up the source.
>
> Really... well, that's some real bullshit there, maxie!
> It's a DIRECT quote from President von Munchausen's personal Nazi
> sympathizer, Sebastian v. Gorka.
>
>> “The message I have, it’s a very simple one. It’s a bumper sticker,
>> Sean: The era of the Pajama Boy is over January 20th, and the alpha
>> males are back.” -S v. Gorka
>
> http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/12/18/gorka-era-pajama-bo
> y-january-20th-alpha-males-back/
>
> Know what the lowercase "v" represents? Of course you DO! He's a
> member of a Nazi sympathizer organization back in Hungary.
>
> Lack of NPR citation noted. But that was a real nice attempt!
> Stick to lying to girls, you'll get farther.
>
> Too easy!

NPR = Nazi Propagada Reguritated.

Have you ever considered the utter irony of "tolerant, antibigotry"
progressive pukes making untrue statements like these?

https://www.buzzfeed.com/mitchprothero/how-a-trump-adviser-failed-upwards-
from-hungary-to-the?utm_term=.nf0R1wK3Bm#.wpjnQP1A0W

You're about 2 days behind the news, Sparky. It's a repulsive hit piece by
another lefty piece of shit but he does admit that the filth being spewed
by you filth about Gorka is wrong.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

It was all politics... rich verses poor. Politics of the Left, class
warfare. Make them hate one another and use envy and jealousy, the Left
painted the La cross team as rich kids and the prosecutor ended up in
trouble because of the pursuit of politics in the case rather than
seeking justice.

--
That's Karma

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:oe1a9q$ffr$1...@dont-email.me...

Yep, and most of it was started within those 100 days.....but apparently you
think the President is some sort of dictator that can simply do whatever he
wants and have it instantly happen.

All I can say, if you're unhappy with Trump's performance, then Obama should
have really pissed you off.

Oh, but let me guess, you were happy because you liked Obama.

[Scout]

"Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:emicu4...@mid.individual.net...

No, actually his travel ban was perfectly adequate....some liberal judges
whoever that don't wish to observe the law decided to come up with new
conditions, limits, and restrictions on the power that the President already
has under the law as it exists.

Can't blame Trump for Liberal judges legislating from the bench.

Maybe he should start seeking to impeach them?

[Scout]

"Scout" <me4...@centurylink.removeme.this2.net> wrote in message
news:oe23fe$hnn$1...@dont-email.me...

Further 2 current polls on MSN

One hundred days in, would you vote/still vote for Donald Trump for
president?
Yes -52%
No - 48%

(Trump's supporter is UP)

Grade President Trump so far:
A - 19%
B - 25%
C - 10%
D - 12%
F - 34%

54% give Trump a passing grade, only 46% given him a failing grade.

(Thus most people think he's doing an acceptable job, so far)

Yea, and it must really piss you off that polls such as these utterly refute
the rehetoric that America hates Trump and already think he's a failure.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

The obvious question is why do we have 17 intelligence agencies to spy
on Americans..... and when have 2 agencies agreed much less 17 of them,
that in and of its self is troubling and a reason for concern that
something about that statement of 17 agencies all telling the same
story, is very wrong.


--
That's Karma

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

on Americans..... and when we have 2 agencies agreeing, much less 17 of
them. That in and of its self is troubling and a reason for concern that

something about that statement of 17 agencies all telling the same
story, is very wrong.

Why would 17 agencies have the same ability and confirm the same
intelligence precisely when the ObamaRegime needed them to do it?

It reminds me of the efficiency of Communist governments that ordered
the firing squad out before the judges had the verdict. They knew what
the judges verdict was before the judge did.

--
That's Karma

[Shadow]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 19:38:53 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@centurylink.removeme.this2.net> wrote:

>So you don't like Trump....but have NO idea of what he's doing.

The Trumpet has made it quite clear that he doesn't either.
Except that it's "more work" than playing golf and raping underage
girls.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

[Shadow]

Available here, if you block Google datamining:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170429095237/https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf

The "first 100 days in office" promise that made most of his
voters believe he was "the right one".
10% still believe it. Read up on the Bell curve.

[Shadow]

On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 10:43:13 -0000 (UTC), "Wiley E. Coyote"
<nuke_them_...@sulaco.com> wrote:

>Liberalism is a mental illness, after all, that destroys reason or destroys
>morality.

I agree.
You DO know what "liberalism" means, right ?
A minimal government, IOW, minimum taxes, so no public health,
education or defense. No empathy at all for fellow citizens. Dog eats
dog.
It's the repug's promise to their voters, but they lobby for
their sponsors, who hate the idea of losing the hand-outs from the
government, which in turn means BIG taxes for the average worker
and/or a gigantic deficit.
The US government spends over 50% of the country's GNP under
the Trumpet, most of which goes to "private contractors". It's the
largest budget in the world.
Hardly a "minimal state" if it (ab)uses > 50% of the GNP.
You need to change something. Your reason and morality died a
long time ago.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 13:26:34 -0300, Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote:

>On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 10:43:13 -0000 (UTC), "Wiley E. Coyote"
><nuke_them_...@sulaco.com> wrote:
>
>>Liberalism is a mental illness, after all, that destroys reason or destroys
>>morality.
>
> I agree.
> You DO know what "liberalism" means, right ?
> A minimal government, IOW, minimum taxes, so no public health,
>education or defense. No empathy at all for fellow citizens. Dog eats
>dog.

LOL

Did you just make that up or did you just make that up?

[Shadow]

No, he'd have to abuse executive orders to be called a
"dictator".

[Shadow]

No, I used a dictionary. I suppose you use Fox News,

[Just Wondering]

On 4/29/2017 11:18 AM, Shadow wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 09:31:06 Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 13:26:34 Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote:

>>> On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 10:43:13 "Wiley E. Coyote" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Liberalism is a mental illness, after all, that destroys
>>>> reason or destroys morality.
>>>
>>> I agree.

>>> You DO know what "liberalism" means, right ? A minimal government >>> IOW, minimum taxes, so no public health, education or defense.

>>> No empathy at all for fellow citizens. Dog eats dog.
>>
>> LOL Did you just make that up or did you just make that up?
>
> No, I used a dictionary.
>

What dictionary gives that definition? It looks like you're confusing
liberalism with libertarianism, which are two very different things.

https://www.reference.com/government-politics/modern-liberalism-a9a43b5b8913c981#

Q: What is modern liberalism?
A:
Modern liberalism focuses around the use of the state for the benefit of
society as a whole. It is generally associated with social welfare
programs and a variety of other means that are used to support society
through the use of programs.

Humanitarian wars are also commonly associated with modern liberalism;
these wars are fought with words, unlike other wars. They are intended
to help support the people who cannot support themselves and to stand up
for the rights of people to use the state to their benefits. Modern
liberals are also fond of the idea of mixed economies; they believe that
there should be less definitive class separation and that there should
be a strong mixture of people from different backgrounds combined
together in an economical society.

Unlike traditional liberalism, there is a certain element of tyranny
within the modern liberal movement. In the past, liberalism was used to
literally liberate people from the rule of kings and tyrants. Modern
liberalism is now imposing its beliefs onto people who are not
interested in focusing their lives around how their state can help them;
it is a forced movement that is functioning more like a tyranny than any
other liberal beliefs have ever done.

[Wiley E. Coyote]

Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote in
news:vbe9gctgmteorkcfs...@4ax.com:

And you prove my point exquisitely.

[FPP]

Yup. "The Prosecutor".
Not the left, or the right... "the prosecutor".

One man that wanted to make a name for himself.
Credit where credit is due.

[FPP]

And the obvious answer is that we don't.

The truth is universal. When something is true, everyone tells it that way.
This is 5th grade reasoning, Scotty.

If you wake up one morning and there is snow on the ground, it isn't
"very wrong" if every meteorologist told you we had a storm last night.

[FPP]

You're lying again.

[FPP]

Fucknuts, let's examine responsibility, here.

*HE* promised it, not me.

His standard, not mine.

His failure, not Obama's.

Your excuse. He's a total failure. Own it.

[FPP]

"Love to eat shit"?

Flies: 100%

[Alex W.]

Said judge was one James L. Robart, senior judge in the Western District
of Washington, and he was appointed by GW Bush (and approved unanimously
by the Senate).

It was far from adequate because by all accounts he did not consult with
or brief the relevant agencies as he should have. Until the temporary
restraining order kicked in, there was considerable confusion at
airports because there hadn't been a heads-up or indeed the time
necessary to devise procedures and train officials to implement the EO.
Nor were travellers warned. Aside from the stupidity of not working
with the people tasked with putting the executive order into action and
protecting the nation, it created a PR disaster which absolutely had an
impact on the court's decision.

Arguably, it was also unnecessary in the first place. Existing laws,
executive orders and regulations could have been used to implement such
a policy and effectively shut out citizens from the nations concerned
without picking a political fight.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Oh, I"m glad you said that. Go ahead and cite the dictionary you used.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 15:03:21 -0600, Just Wondering
<fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 4/29/2017 11:18 AM, Shadow wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 09:31:06 Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 13:26:34 Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 10:43:13 "Wiley E. Coyote" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Liberalism is a mental illness, after all, that destroys
>>>>> reason or destroys morality.
>>>>
>>>> I agree.
>>>> You DO know what "liberalism" means, right ? A minimal government >>> IOW, minimum taxes, so no public health, education or defense.
>>>> No empathy at all for fellow citizens. Dog eats dog.
>>>
>>> LOL Did you just make that up or did you just make that up?
>>
>> No, I used a dictionary.
> >
>What dictionary gives that definition? I

There is no dictionary that gives that definition. He has no idea what
the fuck he's babbling about.

[Shadow]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 03:30:14 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude

<klausscha...@null.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 14:18:24 -0300, Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 09:31:06 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>><klausscha...@null.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 13:26:34 -0300, Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 10:43:13 -0000 (UTC), "Wiley E. Coyote"
>>>><nuke_them_...@sulaco.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Liberalism is a mental illness, after all, that destroys reason or destroys
>>>>>morality.
>>>>
>>>> I agree.
>>>> You DO know what "liberalism" means, right ?
>>>> A minimal government, IOW, minimum taxes, so no public health,
>>>>education or defense. No empathy at all for fellow citizens. Dog eats
>>>>dog.
>>>
>>>LOL
>>>
>>>Did you just make that up or did you just make that up?
>>
>> No, I used a dictionary. I suppose you use Fox News,
>> []'s
>
>Oh, I"m glad you said that. Go ahead and cite the dictionary you used.

Oxford, but the origin of the term is in most political
textbooks. If you study a little, you will find more, specially the
part about individual rights, which are the result of minimal
government control (small government).
Oxford:
1.2 (in a political context) favoring individual liberty, free
trade, and moderate political and social reform.

PS which of the two parties in the USA IN YOUR OPINION is more
"liberal", as per the REAL definition of the term (not the definition
drunken rednecks throw around like it's an insult) ?
Curious about how people in your IQ range think.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

There is nothing in any Oxford dictionary anywhere that defines
"liberalism" to include "no public health, education or defense. No

empathy at all for fellow citizens."

You're making this shit up .

Try again.

[Shadow]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 04:34:30 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude

There seem to be a lot of people "making this shit up"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Read more .. and more.
Then tell me, which party really supports liberalism (as an
ideal) ?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

So now you've switched from the Oxford Dictionary to Wikipedia.

I see.

[chuckle]

Again. Show us where "classic liberalism" is defined to include "no

public health, education or defense. No empathy at all for fellow
citizens."

Right here ---->